Running Head: PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY
Is Perceived Control a Critical Factor in Understanding the Negative Relationship
Between Cognitive Test Anxiety and Examination Performance?
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 1
Abstract
A well established finding is that the cognitive component of test anxiety (worry) is
negatively related to examination performance. The present study examined how three self-
beliefs (academic buoyancy, perceived control, and test competence) moderated the strength
of the relationship between worry and examination performance in a sample of 270 final year
secondary school students. Participants completed self-reports of academic buoyancy,
perceived control, test competence, and cognitive test anxiety, that were matched with
examination grades in English, science, and mathematics. Results showed an interaction
between worry and perceived control. Students with higher perceived control performed
better at low levels of worry. As worry increased, the differential advantage offered by higher
perceived control diminished. At high levels of worry control made little difference to
examination performance. Interventions designed to reduce worry may not necessarily
improve examination performance unless they also target improved control.
Keywords: Test anxiety, academic buoyancy, perceived control, test competence,
examination performance
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 2
Is Perceived Control a Critical Factor in Understanding the Negative Relationship Between
Cognitive Test Anxiety and Examination Performance?
A robust finding is that test anxiety, or to be more precise, the cognitive aspect of test
anxiety is associated with lower test and examination performance (e.g., Chapell et al. 2005;
Hembree, 1988). Examination performance may have profound consequences for students
and teachers. For students, examination performance can influence access to the job market
and future educational opportunities (e.g., Bradley & Lenton, 2007; Heath, Rothon, & Kilpi,
2008). For teachers, accountability systems use student examination performance as measures
of teaching quality (Perryman, 2006; von der Embse, Schoemann, Kilgus, Wicoff, & Bowler,
2016) in the US (e.g., Common Core State Standards Initiative) and internationally (OECD,
2013). Identifying those factors that exacerbate or ameliorate the relationship between test
anxiety and examination performance is, therefore, of practical and theoretical value. Such
findings can be used to inform the development of intervention to minimize influence of test
anxiety. In this study we examined three self-belief constructs (academic buoyancy,
perceived control, and test competence) that were likely to influence a student’s approach to,
and performance in, examinations, and whether those moderated the magnitude of the
relationship between cognitive test anxiety and examination performance.
Defining the Key Constructs
Test anxiety. Test anxiety refers to individual differences in an enduring, trait-like,
tendency to appraise performance situations (like examinations) as threatening (Spielberger
& Vagg, 1995). Persons high in test anxiety tend to anticipate failure, freeze in performance
situations, and have difficulty in concentrating in test settings (Zeidner, 2007, 2014). It has
been widely accepted for some time that test anxiety is a multidimensional phenomenon that
includes cognitive and affective-physiological elements (e.g., Lowe et al., 2008; Segool, von
der Embse, Mata, & Gallant, 2014). The cognitive element, often referred to as worry, refers
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 3
to negative catastrophic thoughts concerning failure, and its consequences; the affective-
physiological element refers to feelings of tension and accompanying physiological
manifestations of anxiety such as an increased heart-rate.
Academic buoyancy. Academic buoyancy is the perceived capacity of a student to
withstand the pressures and challenges that are typical for school (e.g., competing deadlines,
examination pressure, and poor grades) and respond positively to experiences of failure
(Martin & Marsh, 2008). Unlike resiliency, which refers to responses to severe adversity
(e.g., school refusal and chronic bullying), academic buoyancy has greater relevance to
students facing every day stressors (Martin & Marsh, 2008, Martin, 2013). Indeed, academic
buoyancy has been described as an ‘everyday’ form of resilience (Martin & Marsh, 2009).
Perceived control. Perceived control refers to the degree of certainty a student has
about how to achieve good marks or avoid doing poorly (Connell, 1985; Martin, 2007). The
locus of perceived control is one of the three key elements of the attributional theory of
motivation (Graham & Taylor, 2016; Weiner, 2010); the other two being stability and
controllability. A student with high perceived control is able to see and understand the link
between their effort or strategy and the academic outcome whereas those low in perceived
control are at risk of helplessness or self-sabotage, such as a strategic withdrawal of effort
(Martin, 2001a, 2001b). Accordingly, perceived control influences how students prepare for
and perform in tests and examinations (Martin, 2010).
Test competence. Test competence is the belief that one has the capacity to perform
well on tests and examinations (Topman, Kleijn, van der Ploeg, & Masset, 1992). Students
may hold competence beliefs about their academic subject knowledge, subject-specific
academic self-concept or self-efficacy in mathematics, English, science, and so on, but this
does not necessarily mean that those students will be confident about demonstrating that
knowledge under test or examination conditions (Putwain, Woods, & Symes, 2010). In
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 4
addition to subject knowledge, successful examination performance requires students to be
able to work quickly under limited time conditions and to be able to successfully understand
and respond to assessment demands (Kleijn, van der Ploeg & Topman, 1994). Students with
high test competence believe that they have exam and test-taking skills to demonstrate their
knowledge under test conditions.
Test Anxiety, Self-beliefs, and Examination Performance
A small to moderate negative correlation has been found between cognitive test
anxiety and performance on tests and examinations (e.g., Cassady & Johnson, 2002; Putwain,
2008). This has been attributed to anxiety interfering with working memory capacity and
function (e.g., Owens, Stevenson, Norgate, & Hadwin, 2008; Putwain, Shah, & Lewis, 2014).
Importantly, this relationship remains when controlling for the influence of prior examination
performance (e.g., Putwain, Daly, Chamberlain, & Saddredini, 2016). That is, a change in test
anxiety precedes and predicts changes in subsequent examination performance that is not
simply an artifact of prior low attainment. As the relationship between the affective-
physiological component of test anxiety is typically negligible (e.g., Hembree, 1988; Seip,
1991), we focused solely on the cognitive aspect of test anxiety as being the component most
germane to the focus of this study (the relationship with examination performance).
Self-beliefs also show small to moderate positive correlations with examination
performance. Higher test and examination performance is related to higher academic
buoyancy (Martin, 2014; Putwain, Chamberlain, Daly, & Saddredini, 2015), higher perceived
control (Collie, Martin, Malmberg, Hall, & Ginns, 2015; Leim & Martin, 2012), and higher
test competence (Kleijn et al., 1994; Birenbaum & Pinku, 1997). Higher academic buoyancy,
perceived control, and test competence, are all implicated in a network of adaptive cognition,
emotion, motivation, behavior, and self-regulation (e.g., effort, persistence, effective use of
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 5
cognitive strategies, and so on) that are all likely to result in better examination performance
(Kitsantas & Cleary, 2016; Martin, 2007).
Might Self-beliefs Moderate the Test Anxiety and Examination Performance
Relationship?
A moderating variable is one that changes the magnitude and/ or direction of the
relationship between two other variables (Fairchild & McQullin, 2010). Studies have
examined the moderating role of demographics (e.g., age, gender), task characteristics (e.g.,
difficulty, administration), and situational factors (e.g., feedback, time pressure) on the
relationship between cognitive test anxiety and examination performance (for reviews of
moderating factors see Hembree, 1988; Zeidner, 1998). No studies, to date, have examined
how self-beliefs might interact with cognitive test anxiety to predict examination
performance. Two related studies, however, suggest that self-beliefs might be a plausible
candidate. Putwain et al. (2016) reported an interaction between cognitive test anxiety and
academic buoyancy on task-focused coping; the negative correlation was amplified in low
buoyancy students. Putwain and Daly (2013) used a person-centered approach to show
distinct clusters of students with similar levels of test anxiety, but differing levels of
academic buoyancy and examination scores.
Models of test anxiety propose that competence beliefs play an important role in
determining the degree and severity of anxiety (e.g., Segool et al., 2014; Zeidner &
Matthews, 2005). All things being equal, a student with low competence beliefs, and
anticipates failure, is more likely to experience a high degree of test anxiety. Empirical
evidence bears out this prediction for academic buoyancy (Putwain, Connors, Symes, &
Douglas-Osborn, 2012), perceived control (Pekrun, Goetz, Frenzel, Barchfeld, & Perry,
2011; Pekrun, Goetz, Perry, Kramer, Hochstadt, & Molfenter, 2004), and test competence
(Preiss, Gayle, & Allen, 2006; Putwain et al., 2010). Furthermore, negative correlations have
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 6
also been reported between general academic anxiety and academic buoyancy/ perceived
control (Martin & Marsh, 2008; Martin, Colmar, Davey, & Marsh, 2010). Given that lower
academic buoyancy, perceived control, and test competence, are all implicated as antecedents
on test anxiety, why might these constructs also interact with test anxiety?
According to theory, test anxiety is a multi-causal phenomenon that will be influenced
by many factors other than self-beliefs. Other factors include metacognition, coping
strategies, and motivation (Zeidner & Matthews, 2005), study strategies (Preiss et al., 2007;
Lowe et al., 2008), perceived test importance (Segool et al., 2014), and attentional bias
(Putwain, Langdale, Woods, & Nicholson, 2011). Thus it is possible that some students will
become highly test anxious for reasons unrelated to their academic buoyancy, perceived
control, or test competence. For instance, if a student held a strong metacognitive belief that
worry was an effective coping strategy, they might still become highly test anxious by
ruminating on the consequences of failure, even though they believe themselves to be
buoyant, in control, and good at taking examinations (see Matthews, Hillyard, & Campbell,
1999; O’Carroll & Fisher, 2013).
Notwithstanding the possibility that self-beliefs might contribute to test anxiety, or
that over time test anxiety might also impact on self-beliefs, cognitive test anxiety would also
be expected to interact with self-beliefs. That is, self-beliefs might alter the magnitude of the
cognitive test anxiety and examination performance relationship. At present there is no
empirical evidence for how self-beliefs might moderate the cognitive test anxiety and
performance relationship. We address this gap in the literature in the present study by
examining how academic buoyancy, perceived control, and test competence, might interact
with cognitive test anxiety to predict examination performance. Broadly speaking, we would
anticipate that stronger self-beliefs (i.e., higher academic buoyancy, perceived control, or test
competence) would buffer performance against the negative impact of test anxiety. That is,
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 7
the performance of high worry students who believe that they can withstand the pressure of
testing (high buoyancy), are certain how to attain good marks (high perceived control), or
believe they can demonstrate their knowledge under examination conditions (high test
competence), might be less adversely influenced.
Research Questions and Hypotheses of the Present Study
This study set out to address the question of whether self-beliefs (academic buoyancy,
perceived control, and test competence) moderated the negative relationship between
cognitive test anxiety and examination performance. As demographic variables (gender, age,
and socio-economic background) have all been shown to account for a small proportion of
variance in test anxiety scores (e.g., Putwain, 2007, Putwain & Daly, 2014) these were
included as covariates. The following hypotheses were tested:
H1: Self-beliefs (academic buoyancy, perceived control, and test competence) will negatively
correlate with cognitive test anxiety.
H2: Self-beliefs (academic buoyancy, perceived control, and test competence) will positively
correlate, and cognitive test anxiety negatively correlate, with examination performance.
H3: Self-beliefs (academic buoyancy, perceived control, and test competence) will moderate
the negative correlation between cognitive test anxiety and examination performance.
Method
Sample and Procedure
Data were collected from 270 participants (male n = 88, female n = 178, and 4 not
reported) from two English secondary schools. Students were in their final year of secondary
schooling (Year 11), following the eighteen-month programmed of study leading to the
secondary school leaving qualification (the General Certificate of Secondary Education:
GCSE), and had a mean age of 15.01 years (SD = .89). The sample was ethnically
heterogeneous; typical for urban metropolitan areas of England (Asian n = 128, black n = 35,
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 8
white n = 62, other n = 30, mixed heritage n = 15). Student eligibility for free school meals
(FSM) was used as a proxy for low income (n = 34 eligible). A small proportion of the
sample data were missing (0.9%) and these were imputed using the expectation maximization
algorithm in SPSS. This approach is preferable to listwise deletion or replacing missing
values with the scale mean which may distort the distribution (Graham, 2012).
Self-report data were collected early on in the first term of the school year (October).
A questionnaire pack was completed by students in a period of the timetable used for
administrative purposes so not to interfere with routine lessons. Questionnaires were
administered by a trained teacher who followed a standardized script that included
information about the purpose of the study, ethical aspects (withdrawal, consent, and so on),
and that the questionnaires did not constitute a ‘test’). The pack included an information
sheet, consent sheet, test anxiety questionnaire, and self-belief questionnaire. The
presentational order of the test anxiety and self-belief questionnaires was counterbalanced
and the ordering of test anxiety and self-belief items, within each questionnaire, were
randomly determined. Written permission to collect data was provided by the school Head
Teacher and as well as the individual participants. Participants were not offered any
incentives.
Grades in English, mathematics, and science, were taken from examinations sat
Approx 6 weeks later in December. Actual GCSE examinations were scheduled in May and
June of the following year. Examinations for some subjects, including English, mathematics,
and science, were offered at one of two levels of difficulty (intermediate or higher). At the
point our study was conducted, GCSE examination scores were graded using an eight-letter
system using a criterion-referenced approach against grade descriptors provided by the Office
for Qualifications and Examinations Regulation (e.g., Office of Qualifications and
Examinations Regulation, 2011). The highest grade was a Grade A*, followed by Grade A,
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 9
Grade B, and so on down to a grade G1. Students who are entered for the intermediate tier can
gain a maximum grade of C (the minimum pass grade) whereas students who are entered for
the higher tier can gain a maximum grade of A*.
It is common practice in English schools to schedule at least one round of mock
GCSE examinations. The examination grades used in this study were taken from one such set
of mock examinations. Mock examinations were taken under formal conditions designed to
replicate those taken for actual GCSE examinations (i.e., examinations are taken in silence by
the whole year cohort in the examination hall seated in rows) rather than as informal class
tests. The purpose of mock examination results was to gauge likely GCSE results, inform
final decisions about the tier of entry a student was entered for, and the level of support and/
or intervention offered to students in their final six months of secondary school for students
who are not reaching target grades. GCSE results determine, for students, future post-
compulsory educational opportunities and job prospects (Onion, 2004; Roberts, 2004). For
teachers, GCSE results are used in performance review and can determine pay increments
and promotional opportunities. GCSE results are also used to rank order schools for local
districts based on GCSE grades and the school inspectorate can recommend school
management is replaced or even that a school is closed where GCSE targets are repeatedly
missed (Perryman, 2005, 2006). Due to the conditions under which mock examinations are
taken, their proximity to actual GCSE examinations, and the use of results to indicate likely
GCSE outcomes, although the stakes were not as high as for actual GCSE examinations, we
would argue that the mock GCSE sufficiently represented a high-stakes examination
Measures
1 From 2016 onwards, lettered grades will be gradually replaced with numerical grades 1-9 (Office of
Qualifications and Examinations Regulation, 2016).
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 10
Cognitive test anxiety. Cognitive test anxiety was measured using the six-item worry
scale from the Revised Test Anxiety Scale (Hagtvet & Benson, 1997). Participants responded
to items (e.g., ‘During exams I find myself thinking about the consequences of failing’) on a
scale of 1 – 4 (1 = Almost never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, and 4 = Always). Data collected
using this scale has shown internal consistency and validity (construct, predictive, and
discriminatory) in samples of secondary school students, including those in England (e.g.,
Putwain & Daly, 2014; Putwain, Woods, & Symes, 2010). A good level of internal
consistency was shown in the present study (Cronbach’s α = .78). Cronbach’s α = .70 is the
minimum acceptable value for internal consistency (Cortina, 1993).
Academic buoyancy. Academic buoyancy was measured using the four-item
Academic Buoyancy Scale (Martin & Marsh, 2008). Participants responded to items (e.g., ‘I
don’t let study stress get on top of me’) on scale of 1 – 5 (1 = Strongly disagree, 3 = Neither
agree nor disagree, and 5 = Strongly agree). Previous research using samples of secondary
school students have shown data collected using this scale to demonstrate validity (construct,
predictive, and discriminant) and internal consistency (e.g., Malmberg, Hall, & Martin, 2013;
Martin, 2013). Internal consistency, in the present study, was good (Cronbach’s α = .78).
Perceived control. Perceived control was measured using the four uncertain control
items from the high-school version of the Motivation and Engagement Scale (Martin, 2007).
Participants responded to items (e.g., ‘When I get a good mark I’m often not sure how I’m
going to get that mark again’) on scale of 1 – 5 (1 = Strongly disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor
disagree, and 5 = Strongly agree). Item scoring was reversed such that a higher score
represented higher perceived control. Extensive research has documented the psychometric
properties of data collected using the high-school version of this scale (e.g., Green, Martin, &
Marsh, 2007; Plenty & Heubeck, 2013). In the present study the internal consistency was
adequate (Cronbach’s α = .70).
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 11
Test competence. Test competence was measured using four items from the Study
Management and Academic Results Test (Topman et al., 1992) adapted by Putwain et al.
(2010) to refer to GCSE examinations rather than tests in general. Participants responded to
items (e.g., ‘I can easily manage the amount of material taught for the GCSE exams) on scale
of 1 – 5 (1 = Strongly disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, and 5 = Strongly agree). Data
collected using this scale has shown internal consistency and predictive validity (Kleijn, van
der Ploeg, & Topman, 1994; Putwain et al., 2010). Internal reliability, in the present study,
was good (Cronbach’s α = .79).
Examination grades. English, mathematics, and science examinations were based on
the GCSE curriculum appropriate to that point in the programmed of study. Examinations
were marked by teachers against standardized descriptors using an eight-point grading system
(grades A* – G). Letter grades were converted to a numerical equivalent (A* = 8, A = 1, B =
2, G = 1). In this metric a higher grade had higher numerical value. Although it is not
possible to establish the internal reliability of the examination grade data collected for this
study, previous research has suggested that GCSE examination data show high internal
consistency (mean Cronbach’s α = .82; Bramley & Dhawan, 2011) and teachers’ marking
corresponds closely to that of independent raters (mean r =.90; Dhawan & Bramley &, 2013).
Results
Descriptive Statistics and Bivariate Correlations
Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations are reported in Table 1. All variables
were normally distributed (skewness and kurtosis within ±1) with the exception of English
examination grades, that showed a slight negatively skew (-1.01) and leptokurtic distribution
of scores (1.29). Worry negatively correlated with academic buoyancy, perceived control, test
competence, and examination grades in English, science, and mathematics. Academic
buoyancy, perceived control, test competence, positively correlated with academic buoyancy,
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 12
perceived control, test competence, and examination grades in English, science, and
mathematics. Positive intercorrelations were shown between examination grades in English,
science, and mathematics, and academic buoyancy, perceived control, test competence.
[Table 1 here]
Hierarchical Regression Analysis
We examined interactions between worry, and academic buoyancy, perceived control,
and test competence, in a hierarchical regression analysis. Demographic variables gender (0 =
male, 1 = female), age, and FSM eligibility (0 = no FSM, 1 = FSM), were entered in Step 1.
The main effects for worry, academic buoyancy, perceived control, test competence, were
entered in Step 2. Two-way interactions between worry and academic buoyancy, perceived
control, test competence, were entered in Step 3. Worry, academic buoyancy, perceived
control, and test competence, were mean-centered prior to analysis in order to reduce
potential multicolinearity effects in the interaction terms (Aiken & West, 1991). As
examination grades in English, science, and mathematics, were positively intercorrelated and
showed a similar pattern of correlations with worry, academic buoyancy, perceived control,
and test competence, we aggregated them into a single score (Cronbach’s α = .80, M = 5.41,
SD = 1.51, skewness = -.65, and kurtosis = .15). Despite the positive intercorrelations
between worry, academic buoyancy, perceived control, and test competence, the average
variance inflation factors suggested model parameters were not biased (mean VIF = 1.71).
Other assumptions required for hierarchical regression analysis were also met including
independence of residual data, multivariate normality, and linearity between test anxiety and
examination performance. Results are reported in Table 2.
[Table 2 here]
Demographic variables accounted for a small proportion of variance and were not
statistically significant predictors of examination grades. Worry, and academic buoyancy,
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 13
perceived control, test competence, accounted for an additional 10% of variance in
examination grades. Worry predicted a lower examination grade (β = -.31, p <.001) and
perceived control predicted a higher examination grade (β =.19, p =.002). Two-way
interactions between worry and academic buoyancy, perceived control, test competence,
accounted for an additional 3% of variance in examination grades. A statistically significant
interaction was found between worry and perceived control (β = -.15, p =.02) that we probed
using simple slope analyses at ±1SD.
The negative relationship between worry and examinations grades at mean perceived
control (B = -.70, p <.001) became weaker at low levels (-1SD) of perceived control (B = -
.30, p =.21) and stronger at higher levels (+1SD) of perceived control (B = -1.09, p <.001).
This interaction is graphed in Figure 1. Although this finding might seem paradoxical at first
sight, a visual inspection of Figure 1 shows that at lower levels of worry (-1SD) students with
high perceived control achieved better examination grades than their counterparts with low
levels of control. The advantage offered by high perceived control diminished with increasing
levels of worry. At higher levels of worry (+1SD) the examination grades of students with
higher (+1SD) and lower levels of worry (-1SD) converged.
Discussion
This study set out to address the question of whether self-beliefs (academic buoyancy,
perceived control, and test competence) moderated the relationship between cognitive test
anxiety (worry) and examination performance. Self-report data for self-belief constructs and
worry were collected from a sample of final year secondary school students and examined in
relation to mock GCSE examinations in English, science, and mathematics. Worry predicted
lower, and perceived control predicted higher, examination grades, over and above the
variance accounted for by demographic covariates. Furthermore, perceived control moderated
the relationship between worry and examination performance. At lower levels of worry,
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 14
students with higher perceived control performed better than those with lower perceived
control. The performance advantage offered by high perceived control diminished as worry
increased. Academic buoyancy and test competence did not predict examination grade (when
included in the regression analysis together with worry and perceived control) or moderate
the worry and examination performance.
Results supported H1. Self-beliefs (academic buoyancy, perceived control, and test
competence) correlated negatively with worry. This is consistent with models of test anxiety
in which the appraisal of a performance-evaluative situation is judged, in part, on one’s level
of perceived competence (e.g., Segool et al., 2014; Zeidner & Matthews, 2005). All things
being equal, students who perceive themselves as less able to withstand the pressure of
testing (low buoyancy), who are not certain how to avoid failure (low perceived control), and
who do not believe that they can demonstrate their knowledge under examination conditions,
report greater worry. Competence beliefs are usually conceptualized in relation to academic
competence (e.g., academic self-efficacy or academic self-concept). In this study we
examined additional forms of self-beliefs that are relevant to test anxiety. Empirically
speaking, these results support, and build on, prior work linking higher academic buoyancy to
lower worry (Putwain et al., 2012, 2015) and lower academic anxiety (Martin, 2013; Martin
et al., 2010), and higher test competence to lower test anxiety (Putwain et al., 2010).
Results supported H2. Self-beliefs correlated positively with examination performance
whereas worry correlated negatively with examination performance. These findings are
consistent with cognitive-motivational theories linking self-beliefs and emotions to academic
achievement (Pekrun 2006; Pekrun & Perry, 2014). Positive self-beliefs facilitate the use of
flexible learning strategies, effort, and persistence whereas negative emotions, such as
anxiety, undermine strategic use of learning strategies and disrupt attentional focus. However,
being mindful not to overstate the substantive implications of these findings, the correlations
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 15
between academic buoyancy/ test competence and examination grades were small and only
statistically significant for mathematics and science respectively. This is consistent with other
findings (e.g., Martin, 2014; Putwain et al., 2015) suggesting that impact of buoyancy and
test competence on cognitive-motivational factors and examination performance may not be
as great as that of worry and perceived control. Notably, when all three self-beliefs were
simultaneously entered into step 2 of the regression model, along with worry, it was only
perceived control and worry that emerged as statistically significant predictors of
examination performance.
Results offered partial support for H3. Perceived control, but not academic buoyancy
or test competence, moderated the relationship between worry and examination performance.
This supports theorizing that test anxiety is a multi-causal phenomenon. Although self-
beliefs, such as perceived control, can contribute to one’s level of test anxiety, there might be
other reasons why an individual may become highly test anxious (e.g., avoidance coping
strategies or metacognitive beliefs in the usefulness of worry). Thus, some individuals with
high perceived control still become test anxious and vice versa. Although we anticipated the
performance of high worry students might be less adversely affected if they were high in
perceived control, our results showed the performance of low worry students was only better
than their high worry counterparts if they were also high in perceived control. With
increasing worry, the performance advantage of high perceived control gradually declined.
From the perspective of cognitive-motivational theory, it would seem plausible that the
capacity of persons high in perceived control to deploy their competencies is undermined at
higher levels of worry. This could be due to the high worry interfering with attentional
resources (e.g., Owens, 2008; Putwain et al., 2014) or not being able to deploy the use of
strategic learning strategies (e.g., Spada & Moneta, 2012). At low worry, although students
may not have been susceptible to the interfering effect of worry on attention resources or
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 16
learning strategies, if students are low in control they may not know how to deploy their
competencies.
Academic buoyancy and test competence did not interact with worry to predict
examination performance or predict examination grades in the hierarchical regression
analysis over and above the other predictors (worry and perceived competence). This may be
partly a result of being weakly related to examination performance (rs = .12 – .16). It is also
possible that academic buoyancy and test competence might contribute to a sense of control.
Students with a belief that they can ‘bounce back’ from failure or that they can demonstrate
their knowledge under examination conditions might come to develop a greater sense of
certainty that they can achieve good marks or avoid failure (see Collie, Martin, Malmberg,
Hall, & Ginns, 2015; Martin et al., 2010). Thus, academic buoyancy and test competence
might be indirectly related to academic performance via perceived control. This would imply
a more complex relationship between worry and different types of self-beliefs (moderated
mediation).
Implications for Practice
Combinations of cognitive and behavioral interventions are effective in reducing
worry and other aspects of test anxiety (e.g., Ergene, 2003, von der Embse, Barterian, &
Segool, 2013) but less so for improving examination performance (Vagg & Spielberger,
1995). Our findings shed some possible light on this anomaly. Reducing worry would only
offer potential benefit for the performance of those persons who were high in perceived
control. If students were low in perceived control, reducing worry would offer a limited
performance benefit. Thus, interventions that aim to reduce test anxiety and improve
performance, rather than those that solely to reduce test anxiety, need to focus on both
reducing worry and increasing perceived control. Attributional retraining is a form of
intervention designed to encourage control attributions over the perceived causes of success
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 17
or failure (e.g., Hall, Perry, Goetz, Ruthig, Stupnisky, & Newall, 2007; Stewart, Clifton,
Daniels, Perry, Chipperfield, & Ruthig, 2011). It is possible that attributional retraining could
be used in tandem with cognitive and behavioral approaches to test anxiety in intervention in
order to both reduce worry and improve performance. Given the instrumental role played by
teachers in shaping attributions when providing feedback to students (Hattie & Timperley,
2007), there may also be a role for psychologists in preparing teachers to use the principles of
attributional training during routine instruction and assessment (Margolis & McCabe, 2006).
Limitations
There are four limitations that we would like to highlight. First, we used data from a
mock GCSE rather than an actual examination. Although we argue that that mock GCSE
examinations are high-stakes there is no doubt that the pressures associated with actual mock
GCSE examinations (and other tests and examination results used to select students for the
job market or further education or evaluate teachers) will be higher. It is possible that the
relationships identified in this study would be amplified in a higher-stakes setting. For
instance, one’s ability to withstand pressure (high academic buoyancy) may become more
relevant when the pressure associated with higher-takes examinations in increased. Second,
we speculated that academic buoyancy and test competence may be precursors of perceived
control but cannot test for this possibility using the cross-sectional design used in this study.
Thus, important contributions of academic buoyancy and test competence may not have been
evident from the findings of this study. It would be beneficial for future research to employ a
longitudinal design, in order to temporally separate academic buoyancy and test competence
from perceived control, to examine this possibility.
Third, this study was conducted on a narrow sample of adolescent students at the end
of secondary education. It is not clear whether there is a developmental dynamic to self-belief
constructs which may limit the generalization of these findings to students of adolescent (and
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 18
older) students. To verify this possibility, it would be prudent to examine the roles of worry
and self-belief constructs in both older and younger students.
Fourth, the overall model accounted for approximately 15% of the variance in
examination performance. At first sight, this might not appear a particularly large proportion of
the variance accounted for. However, it is in keeping with findings from the extant literature
showing that text anxiety and self-beliefs constructs can typically account for up to 6-7% of the
variance in examination and test scores (e.g., Marsh & Martin, 2011; Seipp, 1991). There are
likely to be a multiplicity of other influences on examination performance including cognitive
ability, familial background, socio-demographic factors (e.g., deprivation), school, and teacher
factors. Any assessment of the likely contribution to examination performance made by
student-centered constructs (e.g., cognitive test anxiety and self-beliefs) must be mindful of the
myriad competing influences. In particular it would be useful to establish the role of cognitive
test anxiety and control on examination performance over and above the variance accounted for
by prior examination performance. Hence, future research should endeavor, where possible, to
include pre-measures of examination performance.
Conclusion
Perceived control moderated the relationship between worry and examination
performance. At lower levels of worry, performance of persons higher in perceived control
was better than for those lower in perceived control. However, the performance advantage
offered by perceived control diminished as worry increased. This suggests that test anxiety is
multi-causal and some persons may become test anxious for reasons other than their self-
beliefs. Furthermore, interventions designed to reduce worry and improve examination
performance should include elements of attributional retraining.
References
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 19
Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Birenbaum, M., & Pinku, P. (1997) Effects of test anxiety, information organisation and
testing situation on performance in two tests. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
22(1), 23-38. doi:10.1006/ceps.1997.0923
Bradley, S., & Lenton, P. (2007). Dropping out of post-compulsory education in the UK: An
analysis of determinants and outcomes. Journal of Population Economics, 20(2), 301-
328.doi: 10.1007/s00148-006-0110-y
Bramley, T. & Dhawan, V. (2011) Estimates of Reliability of Qualifications. Coventry, UK:
Ofqual.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2014). Common core state standards initiative:
Preparing students for college and career. Retrieved from: http://www.
corestandards.org/what-parents-should-know/.
Cassady, J. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2002). Cognitive test anxiety and academic performance.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(2), 270-295.doi: 10.1006/ceps.2001.1094
Chapell, M. S., Blanding, Z. B., Silverstein, M. E., Takahashi, M., Newman, B., Gubi, A., &
McCann, N. (2005). Test anxiety and academic performance in undergraduate and
graduate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 268–274.doi: 10.1037/0022-
0663.97.2.268
Collie, R.J., Martin, A.J., Malmberg, L-E., Hall, J., & Ginns, P. (2015). Academic buoyancy,
student’s achievement, and the linking role of control: A cross-lagged analysis of high
school students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 113–130.doi:
10.1111/bjep.12066
Connell, J. P. (1985). A new multidimensional measure of children’s perceptions of control.
Child Development, 56(4), 1018–1041.doi: 10.2307/1130113
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 20
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications.
Journal or Applied Psychology, 78, 98 –104. doi:10.1037/ 0021-9010.78.1.98
Dhawan, V. & Branley, T. (2013). Estimation of inter-rator reliability (Report for Ofqual).
Cambridge: Cambridge Assessment.
Ergene, T. (2003). Effective interventions for test anxiety reduction. School Psychology
International, 24(3), 313-328. doi: 10.1177/01430343030243004
Fairchild, A.M., & McQullin, S.D. (2010) Evaluating mediation and moderation effects in
shool psychology: a presentation of methods and review of current practice. Journal of
School Psychology, 48(1), 53-84.doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2009.09.001
Graham, J.W. (2012). Missing data: Analysis and design. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Graham, S., & Taylor, A.Z. (2016). Attribution theory and motivation at school. In K.R.
Wentzel & D. B. Miele (Eds.) Handbook of Motivation at School (pp. 11–33). Oxon:
Routledge.
Green, J., Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2007). Motivation and engagement in English,
mathematics and science high school subjects: Towards an understanding of
multidimensional domain specificity. Learning and Individual differences, 17(3), 269–
279.doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2006.12.003.
Hagtvet, K. A., & Benson, J. (1997). The Motive to Avoid Failure and Test Anxiety
Responses: Empirical Support for Integration of Two Research Traditions. Anxiety,
Stress and Coping 10(1), 35–37. doi: 10.1080/10615809708249294
Hall, N. C., Perry, R. P., Goetz, T., Ruthig, J. C., Stupnisky, R. H., & Newall, N. E. (2007).
Attributional retraining and elaborative learning: Improving academic development
through writing-based interventions. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(3), 280-
290.doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2007.04.002
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 21
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research,
77(1), 81-112.doi: 10.3102/003465430298487
Heath, A. F., Rothon, C., & Kilpi, E. (2008). The second generation in Western Europe:
Education, unemployment, and occupational attainment. Annual Review of Sociology,
34, 211-235.doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134728
Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, effects and treatment of test anxiety. Review of
Educational Research, 58(1), 47–77. doi: 10.3102/00346543058001047
Kitsantas, A. & Cleary, T.J. (2016). The development of self-regulated learning during
secondary school years: A social cognitive instructional perspective. In K.R. Wentzel &
D. B. Miele (Eds.) Handbook of Motivation at School (pp. 169–187). Oxon: Routledge.
Kleijn, W., van der Ploeg, H. M., & Topman, R. M. (1994). Cognition, study habits, test
anxiety, and academic performance. Psychological Reports, 75(3), 1219–1226.
Liem, G. A. D., & Martin, A. J. (2012). The motivation and engagement scale: Theoretical
framework, psychometric properties, and applied yields. Australian Psychologist,
47(1),3–13. doi:10.1111/j.1742-9544.2011.00049.x
Lowe, P. A., Lee, S. W., Witteborg, K. M., Pritchard, K. W., Luhr, M. E., Cullinan, C. M., et
al. (2008). The test anxiety inventory for children and adolescents. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 26(3), 215–230. doi: 10.1177/0734282907303760
Malmberg, L. E., Hall, J., & Martin, A. J. (2013). Academic buoyancy in secondary school:
Exploring patterns of convergence in English, mathematics, science, and physical
education. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 262-266.doi:
10.1016/j.lindif.2012.07.014
Margolis, H., & McCabe, P. P. (2006). Improving self-efficacy and motivation what to do,
what to say. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(4), 218-227.doi:
10.1177/10534512060410040401
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 22
Marsh, H.W., & Martin, A.J. (2011) Academic self-concept and academic achievement:
relations and causal ordering. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(1), 59-
77.doi: 10.1348/000709910X503501
Martin, A.J. (2002a). Motivation and academic resilience: Developing a model for student
enhancement. Australian Journal of Education, 46(1), 34-49.doi:
10.1177/000494410204600104
Martin, A. J. (2002b). Motivation and academic resilience: Developing a model of student
enhancement. Australian Journal of Education, 14, 34–
49.doi:10.1177/000494410204600104
Martin, A. J. (2007). Examining a multi-dimensional model of student motivation and
engagement using a construct validation approach. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 77(2), 412 – 440.doi: 10.1348/000709906X118036
Martin, A. (2010). Building classroom success: Eliminating academic fear and failure.
London: Continuum.
Martin, A. J. (2013). Academic buoyancy and academic resilience: Exploring ‘everyday’ and
‘classic’ resilience in the face of academic adversity. School Psychology International,
34(5), 488–500. doi: 10.1177/0143034312472759
Martin, A. M. (2014). Towards buoyancy and academic outcomes: Towards a further
understanding of students with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD),
students without ADHD, and academic buoyancy. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84(1), 86–104. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12007
Martin, A. J., Colmar, S. H., Davey, L. A., & Marsh, H. W. (2010). Longitudinal modelling
of academic buoyancy and motivation: Do the ‘5Cs’ hold up over time? British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 473–496. doi: 10.1348./000709910X486376
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 23
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2008). Academic buoyancy: Towards an understanding of
students' everyday academic resilience. Journal of School Psychology, 46(1), 53–83.
doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2007.01.002
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2009). Academic resilience and academic buoyancy:
Multidimensional and hierarchical conceptual framing of causes, correlates and cognate
constructs. Oxford Review of Education, 35(3), 353–370. doi:
10.1080/03054980902934639
Matthews, G., Hillyard, E. J., & Campbell, S. E. (1999).Metacognition andmaladaptive
coping as components of test anxiety. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 6(2),
111–125.doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-0879(199905)6:2.
OECD. (2013). Teachers for the 21st Century: Using evaluation to improve teaching. Paris:
OECD Publishing.
Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation. (2016). Setting standards for new
GCSEs in England. HMSO: Coventry.
Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation. (2011).GCSE subject criteria for
mathematics. HMSO: Coventry.
Onion, A. J. (2004). What use is mathematics to me? A report on the outcomes from student
focus groups. Teaching Mathematics and its Applications, 23(4), 189–194.
doi:10.1093/teamat/23.4.189
O’Carroll, P.J., & Fisher, P. (2013) Metacognitions, worry and attentional control in
predicting OSCE performance. Medical Education, 47(6), 562-568.doi:
10.1111/medu.12125
Owens, M., Stevenson, J., Norgate, R., & Hadwin, J.A. (2008) Processing efficiency theory in
children: working memory as a mediator between test anxiety and academic
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 24
performance. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 21(4), 417-430. doi:
10.1080/10615800701847823
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions,
corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational
Psychology Review, 18(4), 315–341.doi: 10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Frenzel, A. C., Barchfeld, P., & Perry, R. P. (2011). Measuring
emotions in students’ learning and performance: The achievement emotions
questionnaire (AEQ). Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 36–48. doi:
10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.002
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Perry, R. P., Kramer, K., Hochstadt, M., & Molfenter, S. (2004).
Beyond test anxiety: Development and validation of the Test Emotions Questionnaire
(TEQ). Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 17(3), 287-316.doi:
10.1080/10615800412331303847
Pekrun, R. & Perry, R.P. (2014). Control-value theory of achievement emotions. In R. Pekrun
& L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.). International handbook of emotions in education (pp.
120-141). New York, NY: Routledge.
Perryman, J. (2005). School leadership and management after Special Measures: discipline
without the gaze? School Leadership & Management, 25(3), 281-297.doi:
10.1080/13634230500116355
Perryman, J. (2006). Panoptic performativity and school inspection regimes: Disciplinary
mechanisms and life under special measures. Journal of Education Policy, 21(2), 147-
161.doi: 10.1080/02680930500500138
Plenty, S., & Heubeck, B. G. (2013). A multidimensional analysis of changes in mathematics
motivation and engagement during high school. Educational Psychology: An
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 25
International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 33(1), 14–30.doi:
10.1080/01443410.2012.740199.
Putwain, D.W. (2007) Test Anxiety in UK schoolchildren: prevalence and demographic
patterns. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 579-593. doi:
10.1348/000709906X161704
Putwain, D.W. (2008) Test anxiety and academic performance in KS4. Educational
Psychology in Practice, 24(4), 319-334.doi: 10.1080/02667360802488765
Putwain, D.W., Chamberlain, S., Daly, T., & Saddredini, S. (2015). Academically buoyant
students are less anxious about and perform better in high-stakes examinations. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 247‒263. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12068
Putwain, D. W., Connors, E., Symes, W., & Douglas-Osborn, E. (2012). Is academic
buoyancy anything more than adaptive coping? Anxiety, Stress and Coping 25(3), 349–
358. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2011.582459
Putwain, D. W., & Daly, A. L. (2013). Do clusters of test anxiety and academic buoyancy
differentially predict academic performance? Learning and Individual Differences, 27,
157-162.doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2013.07.010
Putwain, D.W., & Daly, A.L. (2014). Test anxiety prevalence and gender differences in a
sample of English secondary school students. Educational Studies, 40(5), 554‒570.doi:
10.1080/03055698.2014.953914
Putwain, D.W., Daly, T., Chamberlain, S., & Saddredini, S. (in press) “Sink or swim”:
buoyancy and coping in the test anxiety and academic performance relationship.
Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational
Psychology, doi: 10.1080/01443410.2015.1066493
Putwain, D.W., Langdale, H.C., Woods, K.A., Nicholson, L.J. (2011) Developing and
piloting a dot-probe measure of attentional bias for test anxiety. Learning and
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 26
Individual Differences, 21(4), 478-482. Doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2011.02.002
Putwain, D.W., Shah, J. & Lewis, R. (2014). Performance-evaluation threat does not always
adversely affect verbal working memory in high test anxious persons. Journal of
Cognitive Education and Psychology, 13(1), 120-136.doi: 10.1891/1945-8959.13.1.120
Putwain, D. W., Woods, K. A., & Symes, W. (2010). Personal and situational predictors of
test anxiety of students in post‐compulsory education. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 80(1), 137-160.doi: 10.1348/000709909X466082
Preiss, R.W., Gayle, B.M., & Allen, M. (2006) Test anxiety, academic self-efficacy, and
study skills: a meta-analytic review. In B.M. Gayle, R.W. Preiss & M. Allen (Eds.)
Classroom Interaction and Instructional Processes: A Meta-Analytic Review (pp. 99-
111). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Roberts, K. (2004). School-to-work transitions: Why the United Kingdom's educational
ladders always fail to connect. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 14(3),
203–216. doi:10.1080/09620210400200126
Segool, N. K., von der Embse, N. P., Mata, A. D., & Gallant, J. (2014). Cognitive behavioral
model of test anxiety in a high-stakes context: An exploratory study. School Mental
Health, 6(1), 50-61.doi: 10.1007/s12310-013-9111-7
Seipp, B. (1991). Anxiety and academic performance: A meta-analysis of findings. Anxiety,
Stress and Coping, 4(1), 27-41. doi.org/10.1080/08917779108248762
Spada, M.M., & Moneta, G.B. (2012) A metacognitive-motivational model of surface
approach to studying. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of
Experimental Educational Psychology, 32(1), 45-62. doi:
10.1080/01443410.2011.625610
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 27
Spielberger, C. D., & Vagg. R.P. (1995). Test Anxiety: A Transactional Process Model. In by
C. D. Speilberger & P. R. Vagg (Eds.) Test Anxiety: Theory, Assessment and
Treatment, (pp. 3–14). Bristol, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Stewart, T. L. H., Clifton, R. A., Daniels, L. M., Perry, R. P., Chipperfield, J. G., & Ruthig, J.
C. (2011). Attributional retraining: Reducing the likelihood of failure. Social
Psychology of Education, 14(1), 75-92.doi: 10.1007/s11218-010-9130-2
Topman, R. M., Kleijn, W., van der Ploeg, H. M., & Masset, E. A. (1992). Test anxiety,
cognitions, study habits and academic performance: A prospective study. In K. A.
Hagtvet (Ed.), Advances in test anxiety research (Vol. 7, pp. 221–241). Amsterdam:
Swets & Zeitlinger.
Vagg, P. R., & Spielberger, C. D. (1995). Treatment of test anxiety: Application of the
transactional process model. In C. D. Spielberger & P. R. Vagg (Eds.), Test anxiety:
Theory, assessment, and treatment (pp. 195-215). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis
von der Embse, N., Barterian, J., & Segool, N. (2013). Test anxiety interventions for children
and adolescents: A systematic review of treatment studies from 2000-2010. Psychology
in the Schools, 50(1), 57-71. doi: 10.1002/pits.21660
von der Embse, N. P., Schoemann, A. M., Kilgus, S. P., Wicoff, M., & Bowler, M. (2016).
The influence of test-based accountability policies on teacher stress and instructional
practices: a moderated mediation model. Educational Psychology: An International
Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology. Advance online publication,
10.1080/01443410.2016.1183766
Weiner, B. (2010). The development of an attribution-based theory of motivation: A history
of ideas. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 28-36.doi: 10.1080/00461520903433596
Zeidner, M. (1998) Test Anxiety: The State of the Art. New York: Plenum.
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 28
Zeidner, M. (2007). Test anxiety in educational contexts: Concepts, findings and future
directions. In P. A. Schutz & R. Pekrun (Eds.), Emotion in education (pp. 165–184).
Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
Zeinder, M. (2014). Anxiety in Education. In R. Pekrun & L. Linnenbrink-Garcia (Eds.)
International Handbook of Emotions in Education (pp. 265–288). Oxon, UK:
Routledge.
Zeidner, M., & Matthews, G. (2005). Evaluation anxiety. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck
(Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 141–163). London: Guilford
Press.
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 29
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for test anxiety, academic buoyancy, perceived control, test competence, and Year 11 mid-term
examination results in English, mathematics, and science.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
1. Worry — -.69*** -.72*** -.66*** -.22** -.27*** -.30***
2. Academic Buoyancy — .71*** .87*** .12 .13 .15*
3. Perceived Control — .71*** .27*** .31*** .27***
4. Test Competence — .15 .16** .15
5. English Grade — .58*** .64***
6. Science Grade — .76***
7. Mathematics Grade —
Range 1–4 1–5 1–5 1–5 1–8 1–8 1–8
Mean 2.37 2.86 3.25 2.77 5.84 5.07 5.32
SD 0.69 0.89 0.81 0.83 1.71 1.78 1.64
Cronbach’s α .78 .78 .70 .79 — — —
*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 30
Table 2
Hierarchical regression analysis to examine the interactions between worry, academic buoyancy, perceived control, and test competence in
predicting examination grade, after controlling for demographic variables.
R2 ΔR2 F (df) B SE β VIF
Step 1 .01 .01 0.89 (2, 237)
Gender .01 .01 .09 1.01
Age -.02 .10 -.02 1.01
Free School Meal -.01 .01 -.05 1.02
Step 2 .12 .11 6.87 (4, 233)***
Worry -.70 .18 -.27*** 1.68
Buoyancy -.23 .15 -.13 2.10
Perceived control .36 .15 .18** 1.64
Test competence -.08 .16 -.01 1.97
Step 3 .15 .03 2.30 (3, 230) *
Worry × Buoyancy -.11 .23 -.05 2.57
Worry × Perceived control -.40 .19 -.15* 1.48
Worry × Test competence .04 .23 .02 2.64
Note. VIF = Variance Inflation Factor *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.
PERCEIVED CONTROL AND COGNITIVE TEST ANXIETY 31
Figure 1. The interaction between worry and perceived control in predicting examination
grade.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Low (-1SD) Mean High (+1SD)
Me
an E
xam
inat
ion
Gra
de
Worry
Low (-1SD)
Mean
High (+1SD)
PerceivedControl
Top Related